The Fate of #756 by Marc Ecko

[Jack of Arcades]

[ QUOTE ]
That, again, is the VERY DEFINITION of semantical argument!

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd argue this, but I don't want to get into semantics.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Wait a minute, DrewDevil is a lawyer? And he doesn't know the definition of semantics?

For [censored]'s sake that is really unacceptable.

[/ QUOTE ]

What, exactly, do YOU think semantics means?

I think it means focusing on meanings, forms, or interpretations of words instead of the argument itself.

Ex.: Poster asks Redbean if Bonds used steroids. Redbean asks "how do you define a steroid? What kind of steroid? When was this alleged use? Etc."

Ex.: Poster asks Redbean if Bonds "juiced." Redbean's answer is that Bonds hasn't violated the MLB policy, etc.

Now that is the pluperfect definition of semantical argumentation right there. Everything is about definitions, meanings and interpretations for Redbean. He answers the question he wants to answer, not the question asked, using definitions, meanings, and interpretations.

Hell, in another argument he claimed it was a "myth" that the 1991 memo banned steroids, then when confronted with the quote that said steroids were prohibited, he said it didn't "unilaterally" prohibit steroids, because prescribed steroids weren't prohibited. (LDO)

That, again, is the VERY DEFINITION of semantical argument!

So before you accuse me of not knowing what semantics are, perhaps you should look it up.

Edit: Prediction: now kyleb will start arguing the merits of the above examples, and not whether or not they were semantical arguments, and someone else will think I've been PWNED again. (sighh...)

[/ QUOTE ]

To be accurate, he didn't claim it was a myth that the memo talked about steroids. You claimed that the memo unilaterally banned steroids. It absolutely did not. It might be a small point, but perhaps he is worried about...oh I don't know, you intentionally misrepresenting him by saying he said it was a myth that the memo banned steroids. It banned some steroids, in some instances. It did not "ban steroids." You might not think this is an important point, but since you don't have access to any of Bonds' medical records or anything like that, it very well could be.

That whole sidetrack about the memo ALSO illustrated the fact that you thought the "cream" and the "clear" were ALSO banned since 1991 when they most certainly were not. So you go from his admission to taking the clear, add in the fact that "steroids were banned in the 1991 memo" and somehow you conclude that he admitted taking illegal steroids in violation of MLB policy.

And when RedBean disputes this and calls it a myth, you call it semantics.

I'm still waiting for your evidence that he took any illegal steroids, evidence that you claimed to have earlier. Bear in mind, nothing about the "cream" or "clear" is in any way relevant, since, if we've been paying attention, we know full well that that was not banned until recently.

[DrewDevil]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Wait a minute, DrewDevil is a lawyer? And he doesn't know the definition of semantics?

For [censored]'s sake that is really unacceptable.

[/ QUOTE ]

What, exactly, do YOU think semantics means?

I think it means focusing on meanings, forms, or interpretations of words instead of the argument itself.

Ex.: Poster asks Redbean if Bonds used steroids. Redbean asks "how do you define a steroid? What kind of steroid? When was this alleged use? Etc."

Ex.: Poster asks Redbean if Bonds "juiced." Redbean's answer is that Bonds hasn't violated the MLB policy, etc.

Now that is the pluperfect definition of semantical argumentation right there. Everything is about definitions, meanings and interpretations for Redbean. He answers the question he wants to answer, not the question asked, using definitions, meanings, and interpretations.

Hell, in another argument he claimed it was a "myth" that the 1991 memo banned steroids, then when confronted with the quote that said steroids were prohibited, he said it didn't "unilaterally" prohibit steroids, because prescribed steroids weren't prohibited. (LDO)

That, again, is the VERY DEFINITION of semantical argument!

So before you accuse me of not knowing what semantics are, perhaps you should look it up.

Edit: Prediction: now kyleb will start arguing the merits of the above examples, and not whether or not they were semantical arguments, and someone else will think I've been PWNED again. (sighh...)

[/ QUOTE ]

To be accurate, he didn't claim it was a myth that the memo talked about steroids. You claimed that the memo unilaterally banned steroids. It absolutely did not. It might be a small point, but perhaps he is worried about...oh I don't know, you intentionally misrepresenting him by saying he said it was a myth that the memo banned steroids. It banned some steroids, in some instances. It did not "ban steroids." You might not think this is an important point, but since you don't have access to any of Bonds' medical records or anything like that, it very well could be.

That whole sidetrack about the memo ALSO illustrated the fact that you thought the "cream" and the "clear" were ALSO banned since 1991 when they most certainly were not. So you go from his admission to taking the clear, add in the fact that "steroids were banned in the 1991 memo" and somehow you conclude that he admitted taking illegal steroids in violation of MLB policy.

And when RedBean disputes this and calls it a myth, you call it semantics.

I'm still waiting for your evidence that he took any illegal steroids, evidence that you claimed to have earlier. Bear in mind, nothing about the "cream" or "clear" is in any way relevant, since, if we've been paying attention, we know full well that that was not banned until recently.

[/ QUOTE ]

The bolded parts are false, and you're not "still waiting" for evidence, you're ignoring it. There is a lot of evidence in the Game of Shadows book. Whether it is credible is obviously up for debate, but there is a lot of evidence in that book.

God I hate myself for posting in this thread.

[RedBean]

[ QUOTE ]
Hell, in another argument he claimed it was a "myth" that the 1991 memo banned steroids, then when confronted with the quote that said steroids were prohibited, he said it didn't "unilaterally" prohibit steroids, because prescribed steroids weren't prohibited.

[/ QUOTE ]

It *is* a myth that the 1991 memo constituted a ban of steroids from MLB.

That may very well have been the commissioner's desire, but it didn't make it into the rulebook that governs which substances are banned.

As I previously asked, and you never answered..... if I broke into the big leagues in 1995 and was issued my player contract, the MLB rulebook, and my copy of the CBA.... how would I know steroids were banned?

I wouldn't.....because they weren't.

The memo may have signaled the intention, but when the CBA was negotiated, the commissioner gave in or gave up to including steroids in the MLB drug prevention program, and they were not added to the list of banned substances until 2003.

You call it semantics, but the simple fact is that MLB had a "Drug Prevention Program" from 1991-2002, and not at any time did it include steroids in it's list of banned substances.

Semantics aside....answer my simple question.....How does a player who came into the league in 1995 know that steroids are banned, when no mention whatsoever is made in the official rulebook or contracts that govern those specific matters?

If they were "banned" as you claimed, why weren't they mentioned at all, nor added to the banned substances list?

If anyone's arguing semantics, to be quite honest, it is your pointing to the vague, undefined, all encompassing use of the word "steroid" in a memo by the commissioner that did not establish a rule, and your continuing to ignore the fact that they weren't included in the subsequent detailed "Drug Prevention Program" as part of the CBA, which governs MLB labor relations, and is the de facto "rulebook" for these matters.

As for my "semantics", I simply pointed out that <u>even if</u> you choose to assume the memo established a rule...(wrongly, but even if)...it only mentioned to prohibit illegal steroids.....and the steroid Bonds is most commonly alleged to have taken was considered to be an illegal controlled substance until 2003.

Put simply, you said you could point to a specific rule Bonds violated, and the fact is you can't.

Bonds hasn't violated any MLB rule pertaining to steroids.

Indisputable fact. Period.

No manner of semantics or wordplay on your part, nor accusations of their use at me is going to change that indisputable fact.

Accept it, and have fun banging on him with the rest of the angry mob in the court of public opinion.

Because it's all you got. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Wait a minute, DrewDevil is a lawyer? And he doesn't know the definition of semantics?

For [censored]'s sake that is really unacceptable.

[/ QUOTE ]

What, exactly, do YOU think semantics means?

I think it means focusing on meanings, forms, or interpretations of words instead of the argument itself.

Ex.: Poster asks Redbean if Bonds used steroids. Redbean asks "how do you define a steroid? What kind of steroid? When was this alleged use? Etc."

Ex.: Poster asks Redbean if Bonds "juiced." Redbean's answer is that Bonds hasn't violated the MLB policy, etc.

Now that is the pluperfect definition of semantical argumentation right there. Everything is about definitions, meanings and interpretations for Redbean. He answers the question he wants to answer, not the question asked, using definitions, meanings, and interpretations.

Hell, in another argument he claimed it was a "myth" that the 1991 memo banned steroids, then when confronted with the quote that said steroids were prohibited, he said it didn't "unilaterally" prohibit steroids, because prescribed steroids weren't prohibited. (LDO)

That, again, is the VERY DEFINITION of semantical argument!

So before you accuse me of not knowing what semantics are, perhaps you should look it up.

Edit: Prediction: now kyleb will start arguing the merits of the above examples, and not whether or not they were semantical arguments, and someone else will think I've been PWNED again. (sighh...)

[/ QUOTE ]

To be accurate, he didn't claim it was a myth that the memo talked about steroids. You claimed that the memo unilaterally banned steroids. It absolutely did not. It might be a small point, but perhaps he is worried about...oh I don't know, you intentionally misrepresenting him by saying he said it was a myth that the memo banned steroids. It banned some steroids, in some instances. It did not "ban steroids." You might not think this is an important point, but since you don't have access to any of Bonds' medical records or anything like that, it very well could be.

That whole sidetrack about the memo ALSO illustrated the fact that you thought the "cream" and the "clear" were ALSO banned since 1991 when they most certainly were not. So you go from his admission to taking the clear, add in the fact that "steroids were banned in the 1991 memo" and somehow you conclude that he admitted taking illegal steroids in violation of MLB policy.

And when RedBean disputes this and calls it a myth, you call it semantics.

I'm still waiting for your evidence that he took any illegal steroids, evidence that you claimed to have earlier. Bear in mind, nothing about the "cream" or "clear" is in any way relevant, since, if we've been paying attention, we know full well that that was not banned until recently.

[/ QUOTE ]

The bolded parts are false, and you're not "still waiting" for evidence, you're ignoring it. There is a lot of evidence in the Game of Shadows book. Whether it is credible is obviously up for debate, but there is a lot of evidence in that book.

God I hate myself for posting in this thread.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, take out "unilaterally" then. It doesn't make any difference.

[RedBean]

[ QUOTE ]
Hell, in another argument he claimed it was a "myth" that the 1991 memo banned steroids, then when confronted with the quote that said steroids were prohibited, he said it didn't "unilaterally" prohibit steroids, because prescribed steroids weren't prohibited. (LDO)

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, I said that from the beginning, in the very same post in which I called the banning of steroids by the memo a myth.

Found the original post that you are having a hazy recollection of HERE.

The relevant excerpt:

[ QUOTE ]

Myth.

Have you seen the full text of Vincent's memo that "banned steroids", or are you just going off what you read in SI?

If you'd like to see a copy of the entire memo, lemme know, and I can get one faxed over.

First and foremost, the memo only addressed possession of otherwise prescribed steroids without a prescription.
....


[/ QUOTE ]

Lookie that.....See how the fourth sentence where I clearly spell out that the memo only addressed prescription steroids when the player didn't have a prescription?

According to you, I only resorted to these "semantics" when "confronted" with the text of the memo.

In reality, it was all in the same post, sans any 'confrontation' or whatever other silliness you want to remember about it differently.

Simply put, the point about prescription drugs not being banned was the exact point I was originally trying to make when I was telling you it was a myth that the memo banned steroids.

You took the exact point I was trying to make, quoted it from the text of the memo, and thought you were throwing it up in some great 'confrontation' that proved my claim of 'myth' false, when in fact, it's the exact thing I said from the beginning.

LOL.... [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Listen, Drew.....I understand that it was the first time you had ever actually SEEN the memo yourself, rather than going on what you read from SI as you had up until that point.....but in your excitement at some glorious 'confrontation' or wannaba Perry Mason Moment..... you fail to realize that not everyone limits their research to drinking what the sports media pours them, and I've been more that keenly aware of that memo for much longer before you even bothered to actually read it, rather than see it misrepresented by sports media.

And lost in all of this was your original mischaracterization of the memo, citing ESPN, which convienently quoted the memo out of context and failed to mention in any coverage that it did not prohibit presecription steroids.

It was a misguided attempt to imply that all steroids were banned, when they weren't.

[RedBean]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
you thought the "cream" and the "clear" were ALSO banned since 1991 when they most certainly were not.

[/ QUOTE ]
The bolded parts are false, and you're not "still waiting" for evidence, you're ignoring it.


[/ QUOTE ]

But in this post, in your reply to me specifically about the "cream" and "clear" not being banned until 2003, you responded about illegal steroids being "banned from baseball in 1991."

So now your saying that you weren't replying in regards to the "cream" or "clear"?

Care to assert which substance then, if not the 'cream' or 'clear'? Or are you just sticking with the vague "illegal steroid"?

[img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

[ QUOTE ]

There is a lot of evidence in the Game of Shadows book. Whether it is credible is obviously up for debate, but there is a lot of evidence in that book.


[/ QUOTE ]

Only one group has been known to meticulously research the sources of the book, with the assistance of the author's, and having access to their notes, etc.......the Pulitzer panel that was researching it as a result of nomination for a potential Pulitzer award.

What did the esteemed Pulitzer committe researchers say after digging deep into the credibility of the book's sources?

As reported by Buster Olney of ESPN:

"...the book never made it beyond the initial jury stage to the Pulitzer committee. Their work was deemed by the jury too based upon unsubstantiated and uncorroborated evidence and was therefore not able to be viewed as factual."

Oops!....

Pulitzer, the folks known for giving awards for excellence in journalism, and the standard for which journalistic peers measure themselves......Pulitzer found the book to be <u>NOT ABLE TO BE VIEWED AS FACTUAL!!!</u>

Yahtzee!

See the difference between "wild assertions by hack sports media" and "credible investigative journalism"?

Pulitzer sees it. And it's a big difference!

By no coincidence, the majority of "sources" in the book haven't testified in court, and those who have are reported to have told different versions than what they claimed in the book.

Double-Oops!...

[RedBean]

[ QUOTE ]


[/ QUOTE ]

FYP.

/thread

[wisehandpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


[/ QUOTE ]

FYP.

/thread

[/ QUOTE ]

qft

[DrewDevil]

[ QUOTE ]
And lost in all of this was your original mischaracterization of the memo, citing ESPN, which convienently quoted the memo out of context and failed to mention in any coverage that it did not prohibit presecription steroids.

It was a misguided attempt to imply that all steroids were banned, when they weren't.

[/ QUOTE ]

I never said, or tried to imply, that legally prescribed steroids were banned by the memo.

Essentially, your argument has been:

I: said the memo banned steroids.
You: said OH NOES IT DIDN'T -- look, only steroids that aren't prescribed.
I: LDO, of course not, why would anyone try to ban legally prescribed steroids? and why is that even significant?
You: therefore, the memo didn't ban steroids. Ah HAH!
I: WTF?

This makes no sense to me.

You keep trotting out this fact as if it is some smoking gun. Again, why does this matter at all?

Why exactly is this so crucial to you? So the memo didn't ban prescribed steroids--so what? When has anyone claimed that prescribed steroids were banned?

Do you agree that the memo banned illegal steroids?

Please answer that question.

Did the memo ban illegal steroids?

Wait a minute, I know you're going to start blathering about the CBA.

New question:

Did the 1991 memo purport to ban illegal steroids in MLB?